Idea: Vazquez and Pods for Gordon and Abreu

[iamshack]

Not true.

 

The qualities chosen are completely linear to run scoring and run prevention.

 

Linear in terms of run production over the course of a 162 game season, perhaps, yes.

 

But the most efficient offense is not necessarily the one that scores the most runs over the course of a full season.

[SABR Sox]

Linear in terms of run production over the course of a 162 game season, perhaps, yes.

 

But the most efficient offense is not necessarily the one that scores the most runs over the course of a full season.

 

Lol. About 95% of the time, your second statemnt is one of the dumbest any baseball fan can say.

 

You are wrong. End of story.

[iamshack]

Lol. About 95% of the time, your second statemnt is one of the dumbest any baseball fan can say.

 

You are wrong. End of story.

 

See, this is exactly what I am referring to.

 

Your counter-argument is the usual arrogant bs attitude that so many people that happen to be believers in sabermetrics seem to have.

 

Simply because I don't agree with your research and theory, I am dumb and wrong, and the topic is no longer open for discussion.

 

If what you say is true, how are teams that are not "stats based" being so successful in the postseason, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BALL?

 

And you will give me the argument that all saber people give when something occurs which cannot be explained with their calculators- "small sample size."

 

Newsflash, Sabr. Elite pitching shuts down all hitting. Runs are tough to come by. Outs must be productive and runs must be manufactured. Teams that play station-to-station all season long are not accustomed to manufacturing runs and thus are shut down. And then they lose.

 

Or it can be put a more simple way, as your hero BB said it: "My s*** doesn't work in the playoffs."

 

Oh- and I can live without your condescending, patronizing attitude in the future.

[SABR Sox]

See, this is exactly what I am referring to.

 

Your counter-argument is the usual arrogant bs attitude that so many people that happen to be believers in sabermetrics seem to have.

 

Simply because I don't agree with your research and theory, I am dumb and wrong, and the topic is no longer open for discussion.

 

If what you say is true, how are teams that are not "stats based" being so successful in the postseason, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BALL?

 

And you will give me the argument that all saber people give when something occurs which cannot be explained with their calculators- "small sample size."

 

Newsflash, Sabr. Elite pitching shuts down all hitting. Runs are tough to come by. Outs must be productive and runs must be manufactured. Teams that play station-to-station all season long are not accustomed to manufacturing runs and thus are shut down. And then they lose.

 

Or it can be put a more simple way, as your hero BB said it: "My s*** doesn't work in the playoffs."

 

Oh- and I can live without your condescending, patronizing attitude in the future.

 

 

Tell me how you figure: The offenses that score the most runs usually aren't the most efficent. Pleasem that makes as much sense as listening to high school baseball cocaches: None at all.

 

When did i say Eilte pitching doesn't shut down great bats. If there's one thing the rest of the Saber Community and I don't agree on its that 3/4 of baseball is pitching. I believe so, and i've been slammed for it, but hey to me its true.

 

and enough with the, your hero BB s***. Stop being a dickwad. Just becuase i have sme sort of statistical information to explain things and you don't doesn't mean you have to slam me for it. Stats don't lie, only morons like yourself do.

[CWSGuy406]

And you will give me the argument that all saber people give when something occurs which cannot be explained with their calculators- "small sample size."

 

Oh, haha, the typical jab about sabermetricians using spreadsheets or calculators or computers.

 

Funny.

 

Have you met Bill Plaschke? You two would get along great!

 

BTW, guys, let's keep the name-calling to a minimum. This thread doesn't have to turn into a pissing contest -- no need for it to be closed.

 

Newsflash, Sabr. Elite pitching shuts down all hitting. Runs are tough to come by. Outs must be productive and runs must be manufactured . Teams that play station-to-station all season long are not accustomed to manufacturing runs and thus are shut down. And then they lose.

 

Yeah, the Sox really 'manufactured' their way to a title last post-season.

 

I mean, so many games stick out from our run where we didn't rely on the longball.

 

Oh, wait...

Edited July 17, 2006 by CWSGuy406

[SABR Sox]

See, this is exactly what I am referring to.

 

Your counter-argument is the usual arrogant bs attitude that so many people that happen to be believers in sabermetrics seem to have.

 

Simply because I don't agree with your research and theory, I am dumb and wrong, and the topic is no longer open for discussion.

 

If what you say is true, how are teams that are not "stats based" being so successful in the postseason, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BALL?

 

And you will give me the argument that all saber people give when something occurs which cannot be explained with their calculators- "small sample size."

 

Newsflash, Sabr. Elite pitching shuts down all hitting. Runs are tough to come by. Outs must be productive and runs must be manufactured . Teams that play station-to-station all season long are not accustomed to manufacturing runs and thus are shut down. And then they lose.

 

Or it can be put a more simple way, as your hero BB said it: "My s*** doesn't work in the playoffs."

 

Oh- and I can live without your condescending, patronizing attitude in the future.

 

Have you ever seen an expected runs chart?

 

Probably not. Your statement is false. Productive outs are not productive, they hurt run scoring.

Edited July 17, 2006 by SABR Sox

[iamshack]

Oh, haha, the typical jab about sabermetricians using spreadsheets or calculators or computers.

 

Funny.

 

Have you met Bill Plaschke? You two would get along great!

 

It isn't a jab as much as it is a truism.

 

Do you not see all the complexities and intricacies of a major league baseball game? Yet some people want to explain EVERYTHING that occurs on a major league baseball stadium with their calculator- dismissing all other elements.

 

That's just amazingly silly to me.

[SABR Sox]

Here's some work a friend of mine has done about productive outs:

 

Knowing some of you, you probably won't understand, or you'll just say that the White Sox won a WS on productive outs so they must work....

 

Anyways...

 

http://www.geocities.com/[email protected]/PROD.htm

 

http://www.geocities.com/[email protected]/PRODA.htm

 

http://www.geocities.com/[email protected]/Havoc.htm

 

This guy actually has some real good stuff.

 

 

It isn't a jab as much as it is a truism.

 

Do you not see all the complexities and intricacies of a major league baseball game? Yet some people want to explain EVERYTHING that occurs on a major league baseball stadium with their calculator- dismissing all other elements.

 

That's just amazingly silly to me.

 

No it a jab alright.

 

There's nothing wrong with explaing the game thru stats. Quite more objective then explaining he game with your eyes, or personal expiereces for that matter.

[CWSGuy406]

It isn't a jab as much as it is a truism.

 

Do you not see all the complexities and intricacies of a major league baseball game? Yet some people want to explain EVERYTHING that occurs on a major league baseball stadium with their calculator- dismissing all other elements.

 

That's just amazingly silly to me.

 

Explain what with their calculator? What the f*** are you talking about? You're not even making sense anymore...

[iamshack]

Have you ever seen an expected runs chart?

 

Probably not. Your statement is false. Productive outs are not productive, they hurt run scoring.

 

Are you blind? Are you even reading my posts or just responding to them angrily without thinking? You can expect all the runs you want over the course of a season. I have absolutely no qualm with that sort of theory. I understand that it has been proven mathematically that playing the game in a certain manner is likely to produce the optimum number of runs. I understand! I play blackjack using basic strategy! I am not opposed to the power of mathematics and computers!

 

What I am saying is that the game is much, much more complicated than just putting the best OPS guys possible out there and letting them do their thing. Yet you are just blatantly refusing to admit that.

 

Explain what with their calculator? What the f*** are you talking about? You're not even making sense anymore...

 

What is nonsensical about that post?

 

And what are you trying to contribute to this discussion again?

 

You may not understand what I am saying, but at least I am trying to say something. You are just trying to insult me.

[SABR Sox]

Are you blind? Are you even reading my posts or just responding to them angrily without thinking? You can expect all the runs you want over the course of a season. I have absolutely no qualm with that sort of theory. I understand that it has been proven mathematically that playing the game in a certain manner is likely to produce the optimum number of runs. I understand! I play blackjack using basic strategy! I am not opposed to the power of mathematics and computers!

 

What I am saying is that the game is much, much more complicated than just putting the best OPS guys possible out there and letting them do their thing. Yet you are just blatantly refusing to admit that.

 

Th game is more complicated than watching it.

 

THATS ALL YOU BASE THE GAME OFF OF.

 

It's quite pathetic actually. Sabermetrics isn't just calculators and numbers. I watch games, as much as I can. I love going to games. Hell, I even like to watch Pods steal.

 

But when you don't take stats into account, your making a mistake. Stats are definite, whether your stubborn and arrogant like yourself or whether you actually believe so like me.

 

You refuse to admit that stats do not lie.

 

I'm done arguing with you. I could give you a metric on how the White Sox should have won a WS and you probably wouldn't beleve it.

 

Here's an idea: Don't argue with me. I don't like wasting time. I'm sick of your BS "Stats don't mean s***" Becuase they do, and most members around here would agree.

[CWSGuy406]

And what are you trying to contribute to this discussion again?

 

Wait -- this coming from the person who keeps going back to his 'calculator' snubs that he believes are true? Quit kidding yourself, pal...

 

I'll give my final post on this topic, since you seem to have the wrong opinion about me.

 

I'm not a 100% stats guy. I do tend to favor stats, yes, but I don't think they are the be all, end all. There are certain things that stats can't tell you. I'm not going to go into detail, but things like Matt Thorton -- a guy sucks for five years in the bigs, and, with one tweak of his motion, is a solid pitcher out of the 'pen -- can't be explained by stats.

 

That being said, stats are a lot more objective than ones eyes. There will always be personal biases. Stats try to take that out of the picture, especially when you use adjusted stats (ie, stats that adjust for playing in Shea Stadium vs. playing in Coors Field).

 

Bringing this full-circle with the Pods, I don't need stats to tell me he's a mediocre ballplayer -- my eyes can tell me that. His routes on balls hit to LF suck. The only reason he's passable out there is because of his speed.

 

Offensively, I like the fact that he sees a lot of pitches. I like that he's walking more this year than he did last year.

 

Generally, he's a player who isn't preventing this team from winning, but it's the number one spot I'd look to upgrade for next year (out of the position players). He's going to go to arbitration, and will probably make more money than he deserves. Hopefully there's a GM out there that thinks he's the 'sparkplug' to our number one offense in baseball (when in reality, it's all the homers we're hitting -- that's my opinion, of course, but it's an opinion backed by the fact that SLG% correlates well with scoring runs, better than SBs or batting average).

[iamshack]

Th game is more complicated than watching it.

 

THATS ALL YOU BASE THE GAME OFF OF.

 

It's quite pathetic actually. Sabermetrics isn't just calculators and numbers. I watch games, as much as I can. I love going to games. Hell, I even like to watch Pods steal.

 

But when you don't take stats into account, your making a mistake. Stats are definite, whether your stubborn and arrogant like yourself or whether you actually believe so like me.

 

You refuse to admit that stats do not lie.

 

I'm done arguing with you. I could give you a metric on how the White Sox should have won a WS and you probably wouldn't beleve it.

 

Here's an idea: Don't argue with me. I don't like wasting time. I'm sick of your BS "Stats don't mean s***" Becuase they do, and most members around here would agree.

 

Where have you gotten the impression that I don't believe that statistics or numbers mean anything? I have not said that once, and I don't advocate that position currently.

 

What I am arguing is a combination of both schools of thought. Using the most accurate statistics available as well as what common sense and keen observation make clear to produce the best possible strategy for playing the game. If you have read any of my posts on other threads you will see that I often make statistcally-based arguments when referring to how to evaluate a player, so I am not sure why you think I am this old curmudgeon who refuses to see the light of day.

 

The one thing you are correct about me though, it that yes, I WILL NEVER ADMIT THAT STATS DON'T LIE. Because the sure as hell do. Stats are the best way that people can translate experience into numbers. If you think that every statistic that is currently used is the best way to do that, you are flat out insane. Numbers lie all the damned time.

 

In terms of arguing with you, you are under absolutely no obligation to respond back to me, especially if I am just ignorant, arrogant, and stubborn as you claim me to be. Ignore me and my posts all you wish to, becuase no one is holding a gun to your head asking you to respond. Besides, I am not even arguing with you personally, I am arguing with your way of thinking.

 

We have gone back and forth a few times now though, and it seems as though you make several incorrect assumptions about me and make this a lot more difficult than it has to be. I am not against the basics of much of what you believe. However, I think much of sabermetrics is in its infancy still, and has a long way to go. Whereas many firm believers believe that the best models and stats have been designed already and are ready to be applied now.

[iamshack]

Wait -- this coming from the person who keeps going back to his 'calculator' snubs that he believes are true? Quit kidding yourself, pal...

 

I'll give my final post on this topic, since you seem to have the wrong opinion about me.

 

I'm not a 100% stats guy. I do tend to favor stats, yes, but I don't think they are the be all, end all. There are certain things that stats can't tell you. I'm not going to go into detail, but things like Matt Thorton -- a guy sucks for five years in the bigs, and, with one tweak of his motion, is a solid pitcher out of the 'pen -- can't be explained by stats.

 

And yet your eyes and personal experiences can tell you exactly why it is that he is solid. He throws 97 with ease, left-handed. And the personal experiences of Cooper made him make a few slight adjustments which helped his control. And Voila!

 

I am not an anti-stats guy. Where my problem lies is which stats are preferred over others and which are not, and I guess the degree to which they are trusted and utilized. It isn't as though I watch a game and ignore stats. I play fantasy baseball in a 10 X 10 head2head keeper league, so I understand how players are evaluated and such. I read a lot of info on Indians' and A's boards, so I understand the culture. I am not advocating an anti-stats let's all stick our heads in the sand position here. I just believe that much of this is in it's infancy. And there is no reason completely switch philosophies this early in the game. I think you evaluate more slowly how accurate things are, and transition into an overall philosophy which is strong on player evaluation through more accurate stats and mix that in with the traditional notions which have stood up to scrutiny and continued to remain true.

 

I believe that is how the WS are approaching this, and so I am happy with that.

[SABR Sox]

Where have you gotten the impression that I don't believe that statistics or numbers mean anything? I have not said that once, and I don't advocate that position currently.

 

What I am arguing is a combination of both schools of thought. Using the most accurate statistics available as well as what common sense and keen observation make clear to produce the best possible strategy for playing the game. If you have read any of my posts on other threads you will see that I often make statistcally-based arguments when referring to how to evaluate a player, so I am not sure why you think I am this old curmudgeon who refuses to see the light of day.

 

The one thing you are correct about me though, it that yes, I WILL NEVER ADMIT THAT STATS DON'T LIE. Because the sure as hell do. Stats are the best way that people can translate experience into numbers. If you think that every statistic that is currently used is the best way to do that, you are flat out insane. Numbers lie all the damned time.

 

In terms of arguing with you, you are under absolutely no obligation to respond back to me, especially if I am just ignorant, arrogant, and stubborn as you claim me to be. Ignore me and my posts all you wish to, becuase no one is holding a gun to your head asking you to respond. Besides, I am not even arguing with you personally, I am arguing with your way of thinking.

 

We have gone back and forth a few times now though, and it seems as though you make several incorrect assumptions about me and make this a lot more difficult than it has to be. I am not against the basics of much of what you believe. However, I think much of sabermetrics is in its infancy still, and has a long way to go. Whereas many firm believers believe that the best models and stats have been designed already and are ready to be applied now.

 

You are not arguing for both schools of thought. You are arguing that what you see on T.V. is what you see, and what you see in numbers is falwed, when its clearly the opposite.

 

I'm not going to call you stubborn, ignorant, etc, but it is pathetic that you don't take numbers into account. How old are you, ten? Did you fail algebra and avoid numbers or something? Are you even an adult? Or do you just follow baseball like a kid? Most people around here, and well everywhere, that are adults put some consideration into stats, like OPS, you should take a note.

 

And don't tell me you put consideration into those stats, becuase thats what we've been arguiung this whole time. I haven't brought up a "Saber" stat once.

 

And I'm not talking HR, BA, SB's, conditional ones, but clearly the important runs, the ones that relate to scoring, like OPS and ones that prevent it, you ignore.

 

Don't slam me for arguing that Podsednik sucks. Numbers prove he does depending on how you look at things, and you need to realize that.

 

Just don't call me ignorant and don't say I need to put the shoe on the other foot, becuase I played baseball, and I looked at baseball in a style like you did, and its not good. Not saying you need to embrance Sabermetrics or stats even to the extent I do, but you need to look at them, becuase even though you "claim" you do, you've certianly done a good job making it clear that they're not important, at least not as imortant as watching games in drawing conclusions, which is what 8 year olds do.

 

I'm not against the basics completely, but I'm certianly not for them completley either. As a die hard saber fan I actually realize the basics are flawed in many ways. And I could give you some good reading, some good articles on how, but you probably wouldn't read them or even understand them, becuase you wouldn't make an effort to.

Edited July 17, 2006 by SABR Sox

[iamshack]

You are not arguing for both schools of thought. You are arguing that what you see on T.V. is what you see, and what you see in numbers is falwed, when its clearly the opposite.

 

I'm not going to call you stubborn, ignorant, etc, but it is pathetic that you don't take numbers into account. How old are you, ten? Did you fail algebra and avoid numbers or something? Are you even an adult? Or do you just follow baseball like a kid? Most people around here, and well everywhere, that are adults put some consideration into stats, like OPS, you should take a note.

 

And don't tell me you put consideration into those stats, becuase thats what we've been arguiung this whole time. I haven't brought up a "Saber" stat once.

 

And I'm not talking HR, BA, SB's, conditional ones, but clearly the important runs, the ones that relate to scoring, like OPS and ones that prevent it, you ignore.

 

Don't slam me for arguing that Podsednik sucks. Numbers prove he does depending on how you look at things, and you need to realize that.

 

Just don't call me ignorant and don't say I need to put the shoe on the other foot, becuase I played baseball, and I looked at baseball in a style like you did, and its not good. Not saying you need to embrance Sabermetrics or stats even to the extent I do, but you need to look at them, becuase even though you "claim" you do, you've certianly done a good job making it clear that they're not important, at least not as imortant as watching games in drawing conclusions, which is what 8 year olds do.

 

I'm not against the basics completely, but I'm certianly not for them completley either. As a die hard saber fan I actually realize the basics are flawed in many ways. And I could give you some good reading, some good articles on how, but you probably wouldn't read them or even understand them, becuase you wouldn't make an effort to.

 

What are you talking about?

 

Perhaps if you would just stop insulting me for one second, go back and look at my posts, you would see that I never argued that what "I see on tv" is all that matters. You are being so incredibly stubborn because you don't agree with me that you haven't even actually absorbed anything I have said. Do you normally debate people by completely and utterly misstating their position and misunderstanding their arguments? What you are arguing against I would be willing to argue against as well.

 

Please, take some time to go back and comprehend what has actually occurred in these threads.

 

For all the time you have spent responding, one would think you would at least want to understand what you are responding to.

[RME JICO]

If you compare Pods to other Leftfielders he is not that good, but not many of them leadoff either. If you put his stats up against the other leadoff hitters, he is somewhere in the middle. So that would mean half of the leadoff hitters in the league suck if Pods sucks.

[iamshack]

If you compare Pods to other Leftfielders he is not that good, but not many of them leadoff either. If you put his stats up against the other leadoff hitters, he is somewhere in the middle. So that would mean half of the leadoff hitters in the league suck if Pods sucks.

 

Scott is only one of 4 players in baseball with more than 25 steals and an OBP of .350 or higher. The other three are Ichiro, Jose Reyes, and Carl Crawford. That is pretty good company if you ask me. Of course though, and I know this is a major point of contention for Saber types, his OPS is much lower than all three of those, coming in at .758 where as Ichiro is at .842, Reyes is at .841, and Crawford is at a very good .875.

 

This is where the argument comes that Scott is a substandard leadoff man and ballplayer.

 

I understand what the difference is and I admit that Scott is an average leadoff man. But I also understand that he is making $2 million dollars this season, probably what he deserves (if you really want to b**** about substandard leadoff men and players which are overpaid, look at the guy on the northside). There are a lot of other players who are robbing the team blind and hurting our chances worse than Scottie, and I just wish their failures would be addressed as accordingly, by the same group of critics.

Edited July 17, 2006 by iamshack

[WCSox]

The only short-term (for this season) benefit for the Sox in this deal would be dumping Javy's contract. And the last time I checked, the Sox weren't concerned with unloading salary right now. The Sox don't need Abreu and this deal would take away their only base-stealing threat.

Edited July 17, 2006 by WCSox

[Steve9347]

when i read the title of your post, i was all set to tell you to screw off... however, you made valid points, but i dont think the sox want to trade vazquez...

[Milkman delivers]

I haven't read this thread. Is there an actual rumor somewhere in here, or is it just some random trade idea that someone here came up with?

[iamshack]

I haven't read this thread. Is there an actual rumor somewhere in here, or is it just some random trade idea that someone here came up with?

 

It's just a random trade idea that turned into a trash Podsednik thread again at the end.

[gojimthome]

Scott is only one of 4 players in baseball with more than 25 steals and an OBP of .350 or higher. The other three are Ichiro, Jose Reyes, and Carl Crawford. That is pretty good company if you ask me.

 

They shouldn't be company at all. Compared to all of them, Podsednik runs the bases like Konerko. Steals are fine and dandy, but being caught sucks ass and hurts your team's chances of scoring drastically.

 

Ichiro: 28 steals / 2 caught

Reyes: 39 steals / 9 caught

Crawford: 32 steals / 8 caught

Podsednik: 29 steals / 12 caught

 

As you see, Pods is practically the opposite of the guys you compare him to.

 

The Sox don't need Abreu and this deal would take away their only base-stealing threat.

 

No, we don't really need him...But he's gotta be 4 or 5 times more valuable than Pods as a leadoff hitter. As for that "stolen base threat" trash...Abreu: 19 steals/ 4 caught

 

He's better at it than Pods.

[iamshack]

They shouldn't be company at all. Compared to all of them, Podsednik runs the bases like Konerko. Steals are fine and dandy, but being caught sucks ass and hurts your team's chances of scoring drastically.

 

Ichiro: 28 steals / 2 caught

Reyes: 39 steals / 9 caught

Crawford: 32 steals / 8 caught

Podsednik: 29 steals / 12 caught

 

As you see, Pods is practically the opposite of the guys you compare him to.

No, we don't really need him...But he's gotta be 4 or 5 times more valuable than Pods as a leadoff hitter. As for that "stolen base threat" trash...Abreu: 19 steals/ 4 caught

 

He's better at it than Pods.

 

Scott certainly hasn't been especially great on the basepaths this year, you are correct. It isn't exactlly fair to say he isn't "good" at it though. His 201 sb's are the most of any player over the past 3 seasons, and he has a career successful sb percentage of about 78%, which is actually fairly good. The question or concern should be whether or not he has lost a step due to age/injury or whether he is just not executing well. There is evidence that can point to both.

 

Abreu's career % is 76 %, so I am not necessarily inclined to believe he is a better base stealer.

 

Regardless, this is not a thread about whether Pods stacks up well against Abreu, because he can't. He never has and never will.

 

But with an offense already leading the league in runs scored, it makes zero sense to me to add Bobby ABreu and his $13 million salary for what he brings over Scott and his $2 million salary.

Edited July 17, 2006 by iamshack

[WCSox]

No, we don't really need him...But he's gotta be 4 or 5 times more valuable than Pods as a leadoff hitter. As for that "stolen base threat" trash...Abreu: 19 steals/ 4 caught

 

He's better at it than Pods.

 

Abreu is not an elite base-stealer. Pods is. Abreu is not cheap ($13+ million/year). Pods is.

 

I agree that Pods is not in the Sox's long-term plans, but Vazquez probably should be for now, since it doesn't look like Freddy has much left and Garland will never be more than an innings-eater at the back of the rotation. Gordon is also expensive and will be in his early 40's at the end of his contract.